Perhaps one of the worse things we can experience in this life is war, and perhaps the worse kind of war is a war the divides a nation and families, a war that pits brother against brother. Yet consider how we describe such a war. We use an oxymoron. We call such a war a “civil war.” Even in the midst of a great tragedy, people find something to laugh about. We laugh at ourselves.
People will fight amongst themselves. There will always be war and echos of war. Even when we avoid violent conflict, we still feud amongst ourselves. Candidates, the news media, blogs and the People too often struggle in bloodless civil war over politics. In the quest for victory, some forget we are one People, some forget the purpose of good government, and some push past the limits of morality. A few are only slowed by the threat of jail time. Meanwhile, much of the news media will spin and spin their stories until even the most absurd partisan attacks simply become politics as usual.
How can we reduce the anger and the hostility? As a result of the comments appended to this post, another blogger suggested (here) I do a post on this subject (In fact, she put up a post of her own.).
How do we keep our emotions in check? We can look for the common ground. We begin by assuming that the intentions of others are at least as good if not better than our own.
As citizens, what can we do? The thing we each have the most control over is our own attitude. We can restrain our own fears and anger. We can trust each other to do what is right. Consider this quote from a speech by Alan Greenspan at the Reagan Library in 2003.
Although a rule of law is necessary to a vibrant and efficient market economy, it is not sufficient. We rarely consider, for example, that a law of contracts, an integral part of any rule of law, operates because everyone assumes that only a very small share of legally contracted transactions will require adjudication. If it were otherwise, our courts would be overwhelmed, and our economy severely impaired.
Hence, an effective law of contracts, as part of a rule of law, requires that the vast majority of transactions be voluntary. That outcome necessitates that the buyer of a good or service trust the explicit or implicit warranty on the offered product. The buyer needs assurance that, if an agricultural equipment dealer certifies that a harvester is in mint condition, he is being truthful and his warranty is to be trusted. Similarly, the dealer needs assurance that the buyer’s check is good. If trust in the word of counterparties is lost, any exchange that takes place will need to be administered by a court or some third party. It is a costly use of real resources if one is required to engage in the memorable admonition of one great statesman in a different context, “Trust, but verify.” (from here)
As this excerpt from Greenspan’s speech (well worth reading) indicates, ours is a society that operates largely on trust. In fact, our society only works as well as it does because most people can be trusted.
Government, however, is not about trust. The first function of government is to protect the rights and the security of the People. Government exists to stop, confine, and, if needed, destroy people who cannot be trusted. Of necessity, government is first and foremost about coercion.
Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing. — Ronald Reagan
We apply the power of government solely for the purpose of forcing others to do what we want. When we apply government power with insufficient cause, we abuse the trust of those others. What is sufficient cause? Without government intervention, a stronger party will abuse the rights of a weaker party. What is insufficient cause? We want something we have no right to demand.
Even in America, we still have rapacious and greedy people who steal the property of others. We still have people who will enslave others. However, in our era, that is not the excuse our political leaders usually employ to expand government powers. Instead, they promise the fulfillment of noble causes. They promise to save the poor, the old, and children from poverty and sickness. They promise free education, free roads, free libraries, free housing and so forth. They promise to tax the rich and spend our money wisely. They promise a perfect world.
There is only one problem with the perfection promised by such political leaders. The ends do not justify the means. We have no right to demand that others live their lives in the fulfillment of our values, our beliefs and our holy causes. That is why schemes – even the most noble Utopian schemes – when implemented using the force of abused government power, tend to go awry. Power corrupts.
Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is powerful enough to take from you everything you have. — Ronald Reagan
To succeed, we must remember the principles from which our government originated. Ours is a society that is based on the Rule of Law. We have a Federal Constitution and many state constitutions that proscribe limits on the powers of the people who rule us. If we want a civil society, a society where the term “civil” is not a sour joke, then we each have an obligation to see to it that the Rule of Law is upheld and power of government is not abused.
I had to read this twice, Tom, and I might still come back to it. Lots to think about here, but it does certainly clarify your previous statement about trusting. To make sure I am understanding you, let me paraphrase: you are advocating the assumption of good between neighbors and humans, that most people do want to do the right thing, and that to a certain extent, we should trust until these people give us reason not to. Yes? I agree that among individuals, this is true. If we do not do this, we will never have the chance to form relationships or expand our horizons, never mind what global mistrust does to society as a whole.
Whether or not my understanding is correct, you point out that government is not to be trusted and that specifically, we should not trust government that promises the moon, because if we had that kind of government, we would essentially have Hitler (since that is how he won initial loyalty of the people).
That being said, government should also protect the people. Greenspan says of contracts, “That outcome necessitates that the buyer of a good or service trust the explicit or implicit warranty on the offered product.”
Unfortunately, many of those “rich” you mention are the ones violating the warranty, and many in the government are protecting their right to violate it because doing so supports their political careers and their pocketbooks. The student loan industry has become a perfect example of that. To date, students do not have basic consumer protections on student loans. College is not free, either. So what happens with cases of educational or lender malpractice?
Government, in this case, is structured in such a way that there is no oversight, no way to ensure a student gets what is promised, and no accountability on the parts of colleges, the Department of Education, the accreditors, or the bodies that allow schools to operate in their states and districts. Loan companies and colleges can do exactly as they please. I share with you some horror stories, mostly from the private college sector, and the negative impact these experiences have had on students are lifetime lasting.
In any event, there must be balance in oversight. Too much oversight, and businesses suffocate, leaving the rest of us to do the same. Too little, and the same result occurs. Without moderation, we end up in recession or worse, which is what we are seeing now because we are ending an administration of very little oversight and insufficient attention to domestic policy.
No matter who gets into office next, I pray he will not be radical but will not allow the kinds of rapacious behaviors perpetrated by corporations and larger entities that have been allowed to do as they please for at least a decade.
kgotthardt – There will always be a certain number of people who cannot be trusted. We will always need a government to deal with such people, but a government led by ambitious people with grandiose ideas is more trouble than it is worth. Then the government itself becomes the problem.
Here is a thought for you. Consider the definition of a judge in Old Testament times.
As this post explains, God did not want the Israelites to have a King. Unfortunately, the Israelites wanted to be like other peoples; they wanted to have a king. We are much like the Israelites. Instead of having a limited government and letting people depend upon private charity, we want to be like Western Europe. We too want to have big government socialism. Like the Israelites, we are unwilling to depend upon the God of the Universe. Instead, we insist that some smooth-talking gasbag will do a better job of leading us to Nirvana.
Consider the source of your ire. Don’t government programs create especially difficult problems? The student loan program, for example, is a government program. The more the government is involved in anything, the easier it is for the “rich” to buy influence and skew things so as to serve their own private interests.
On the other hand, the market place discourages such funny business. When people enter into voluntary arrangements; when it is about their own time and money, people are a lot more careful. People are also careful because people can choose who they do business with. When you get a reputation for funny business, no one wants to do business with you. In addition, when government officials work strictly as third party regulators, they tend to have less bias, and their judgment is more trustworthy.
“In addition, when government officials work strictly as third party regulators, they tend to have less bias, and their judgment is more trustworthy.”
I WISH we had that in higher education. Right now, there are no regulators, third party or otherwise. And the lawyers don’t want to touch it with a ten foot pole if a school spins a case as “academic.” Besides that, unless lawyers can get class action suits against corporations like Sallie Mae, they don’t want to take on individual, broke students. Talk about leaving the vulnerable in a lurch!
I see where you are coming from when you say a free market discourages “funny business” BUT when a company has all the money and all the lawyers, we get right back to, “How much justice can you afford?” Consumers end up again on the short end of the stick with no protection because most of us don’t have enough cash stashed away to sue when a company won’t take back its mega-computer that crashed the tiny company database. Do you see what I mean? Oppressive government and oppressive business lead to the same, unfortunate end: the lucky few and the impoverished masses.
I don’t believe in Socialism because I don’t think we are “there” yet. I don’t think it’s humanly realistic. We are all too selfish to bring about the supposed Utopia Socialism can bring.
I’m ALL for ethical capitalism. There isn’t enough of that to go around!
“I don’t believe in Socialism because I don’t think we are “there” yet. I don’t think it’s humanly realistic. We are all too selfish to bring about the supposed Utopia Socialism can bring.”
Not there yet? Well, our children may still live in a capitalist society, but most are educated within socialist institutions. Because our education system is largely owned and operated by the government, it closely follows a socialist model.
It is only because of our republican traditions that our educational institutions have not yet gone entirely haywire. School management is still decentralized. Primary and secondary schools are managed by county school boards. Colleges and universities are run under state direction. However, the Federal Government mandates all kinds of nonsense, and every year its share of the funding pie increases.
With increasing state and federal involvement, our education system is slowly becoming an unmanagable mess. Instead of answering to their customers, parents, public school superintendents answer to a school board. In addition, they operate with funding, regulations, and mandates from the BOCS, the state, and the federal government. With such a management maze, it is a wonder that school administrators pay any attention at all to parents and students. Given that other people pay the bill and parents have so little choice, one has to wonder how much influence parents actually have with school administrators.
Fortunately, we still have some private schools. That is where the rich and the resolute middle class send their children to get an education. And these private institutions set the standard. Our top universities are private institutions. With less money, students attending private schools get a better education than those attending public schools.
Uh oh Tom—you are looking for a big argument here! LOL!
Will have to get back to you on this one….too much to say, not all of it countering what you have here.
My windy response is on my blog.